Second pass at: Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper posts 31–35

This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.

The figure that circulates in coverage is almost always whichever estimand gives the larger effect. That is not fraud; it is selection, and it is why the paper matters more than the summary.

A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.

Trial duration determines what can be observed. A weight-change trajectory at 40 weeks and at 72 weeks are different observations and both get quoted as the result.

The arithmetic in post #32 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Where the Trial registration discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.

Post #32 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Multiplicity and multiple comparisons: if a trial tests many hypotheses, the chance of a false positive on at least one by random chance increases. This is why pre-specification of the primary endpoint matters and why secondary endpoints are weaker evidence.

This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.